8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

Jon Pike writes:

wrote in
:

You're entirely missing the point. What all the digital supporters
seem to be saying is that, although they have no real basis for it,
they -think- that all the important information is being captured.

And what you're saying is that, although you have no real basis for
it, you -think- that important information is being lost.

No, I've seen results of tests

No, no, no, Jon! No fair using the plural here!

saying that there is a 10% measured loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.
That, to me, is important.

Because it reinforces the opinion you already had.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Jon Pike writes:

wrote in
:

You're entirely missing the point. What all the digital supporters
seem to be saying is that, although they have no real basis for it,
they -think- that all the important information is being captured.

And what you're saying is that, although you have no real basis for
it, you -think- that important information is being lost.

No, I've seen results of tests

No, no, no, Jon! No fair using the plural here!

saying that there is a 10% measured loss of
resolution when film gets scanned.
That, to me, is important.

Because it reinforces the opinion you already had.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Jon Pike writes:

"Harvey" wrote in news:u7sud.1040$Sr1.558
@newsfe6-win.ntli.net:

I thought throughout this thread you'd been trying to say the that film
outperforms digital?

Are you incapable of doing simple math?
Tell me, what do you think the percent difference from 88 to 79 is?
Which number is higher, 55 or 88?

There you go again. You figure the only number you can find that
favors film is really the only number needed to describe image
quality.

Ah, by the way Jon, didn't you claim that most film was capable of 100
or 200 cycles/mm? That test was done under optimal conditions with
Technical Pan, etc. The *best case* limiting resolution was no more
than 88 cycles per millimeter.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Jon Pike writes:

"Harvey" wrote in news:u7sud.1040$Sr1.558
@newsfe6-win.ntli.net:

I thought throughout this thread you'd been trying to say the that film
outperforms digital?

Are you incapable of doing simple math?
Tell me, what do you think the percent difference from 88 to 79 is?
Which number is higher, 55 or 88?

There you go again. You figure the only number you can find that
favors film is really the only number needed to describe image
quality.

Ah, by the way Jon, didn't you claim that most film was capable of 100
or 200 cycles/mm? That test was done under optimal conditions with
Technical Pan, etc. The *best case* limiting resolution was no more
than 88 cycles per millimeter.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

...and entirely deserved.

Still waiting for anything coherent or useful to emanate from your
keyboard......

...and entirely deserved.

Still waiting for anything coherent or useful to emanate from your
keyboard......

wrote in message
ups.com...
chrlz whine removed

I out of the blue you cast the first stone:
oups.com
Don't say you didn't beg to be abused.
me

wrote in message
ups.com...
chrlz whine removed

I out of the blue you cast the first stone:
oups.com
Don't say you didn't beg to be abused.
me

"me" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:xQqud.622$2r.171@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:Wypud.604$2r.560@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:7fpud.603$2r.527@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...

Who gives a dam what you do?
Film is better no matter how hard some people try not to accept
it!
me

It looks like you're getting a little desperate to not accept the
idea
that
digital has caught up with film, in fact did so some time ago, and
in
some
cases, surpasses it.

That is the mantra of digital dullards in every NG.
Film; do I have to say it?
me


I'll tell you what, show me some of your work. And look at mine and
tell
me
which is digital and which is film. And not on my website. I'll
mail
you
prints. As long as you mail me some, too.
Like I said, I shoot both. If you don't like digital, what are you
doing
posting to the digital NG? Take yourself out of the conversation, and
be
secure in your own little world.
Photography rules, no matter how you do it...

I posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a photography NG about film
cameras.
I
guess your, in that special ed NG for digital dullards.
:-)
Film; I won't say it because Skippy gets upset :-(
me


I haven't noticed you posting much of use over here, either...

Work on those reading skills. You appear to be having trouble making up
your
mind, a minute ago you said you were done with me.

Still don't want to compare images? I'm waiting...

You *ass*ume incorrectly that I feel a need to prove something to you, I
do
not. You have a need to prove something to me, which you can not.
Film, rules


You're the one with the contention that film is superior to digital, not me.
I have nothing to prove. I just want to see if you can produce any images
of note. So far, you haven't.
And I still haven't seen anything useful from you.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"me" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:xQqud.622$2r.171@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:Wypud.604$2r.560@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote in message
news:7fpud.603$2r.527@fed1read02...
"me" wrote in message
...

Who gives a dam what you do?
Film is better no matter how hard some people try not to accept
it!
me

It looks like you're getting a little desperate to not accept the
idea
that
digital has caught up with film, in fact did so some time ago, and
in
some
cases, surpasses it.

That is the mantra of digital dullards in every NG.
Film; do I have to say it?
me


I'll tell you what, show me some of your work. And look at mine and
tell
me
which is digital and which is film. And not on my website. I'll
mail
you
prints. As long as you mail me some, too.
Like I said, I shoot both. If you don't like digital, what are you
doing
posting to the digital NG? Take yourself out of the conversation, and
be
secure in your own little world.
Photography rules, no matter how you do it...

I posted in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, a photography NG about film
cameras.
I
guess your, in that special ed NG for digital dullards.
:-)
Film; I won't say it because Skippy gets upset :-(
me


I haven't noticed you posting much of use over here, either...

Work on those reading skills. You appear to be having trouble making up
your
mind, a minute ago you said you were done with me.

Still don't want to compare images? I'm waiting...

You *ass*ume incorrectly that I feel a need to prove something to you, I
do
not. You have a need to prove something to me, which you can not.
Film, rules


You're the one with the contention that film is superior to digital, not me.
I have nothing to prove. I just want to see if you can produce any images
of note. So far, you haven't.
And I still haven't seen anything useful from you.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com